The procedure holding Trump’s trial unconstitutional was voted down . Next two days:
Opening arguments on both sides.
My bag of large popcorn was totally inadequate
The defensive argument, according to legal experts did not go very well, a hands on objective did not steer well. Whereas the DS werr able more convincingly to mute the crux:
That the writers of the Constitution did not intend to interpret the 1st and the 14 th amendments in a fashion to suit the Republican counter argument
The sticking point was a literal interpretation tjat meant to imply that only a sitting President is prevy to articles , since Trump is no longer President, he could not be impeached.
The counter argument, although literally more challenging , was flattened by the fact tjat his impeachment did occur prior to the inauguration.
Much was pressed to this basic issue, whereas the business about accountability was merely touched upon.
The substance of that revolved around the idea that no corresponding elements could be ascertained between the claim of Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric and the actual storming of the capitol. This was merely a foreshadowing about who was more inflammatory or what was,
the primary rhetoric , on part of Trump, or, the underlying political motive that appears to stir the contradiction further.
The prosecution opening was very convincing, but it appears that the prosecution desire to put the cause and effect between Trump’s inflammatory rhetoric and the storming of the Capitol, is giving steam to the defensive Republican technique to convert that steam unto more solid ground, that of more reliance unto what constitutes that solidity: The resulting condensation into the assets, (liquid) of a emotive economy of quantum politics, far removed from the certainty of rock bottom certainty of causality
It is the Freudian economy, if I may, that political reality is morphed into the pleasure of party affiliation affords, so most Republicans, are very conflicted between the ethical and moral choice they have to decide between
Their own political future becomes more pressing morally, as their need to hold on to their jobs, overrules their moral sentiments.
Susan Collins, during a Senate break, expressed this this sentiment, contentionally implying it, if one could, without reading into it.
This type of conflict come party division could very well become the hidden rationale if the Republicans defense come next week
The singular question can be sunnerized, in a mind of Cliff notes manner, that the whole political theater revolves around the question of what is more demonstritive here, the political benefit or lack of OR the ideals by which the Constitution may be represented from this day on.
If the former will be the case, then further ethical/moral decay may parallel the fallen empires of the past
The key defense, will be a challenge to the defense: that Trump’s free speech constitutional right was violated, since the prosecution’s point was well taken, pre-countered.
That is, inciting a well demonstrated violance, such as was the case in the storming of the Capitol, does not lay a basis for that constitutional right.
If the defense tries to circumvent the obvious inferences drawn by the various videos matched up. with concurrent Trump tweets, only a first year law student can miss those implications, unless they were willfully diversive; again to set a correspondence between intent and fact.
If this line is sustained, then the further implication strengthens the view that the trial is more theater then not.
The same goes to the idea of a deliberate refrain of impeaching before 45 leaves office. The thing is, the office which receives articles of impeachment would have lawfully rejected the articles before that time.
I did nit get the rationale for that, but if someone could not have missed that, while getting pop corn, would greatly be appreciate it.
_
Is this a continuation of the pre-election impeachment, or a brand spanking and shiny new one?
I do think he’s been a pawn (knowingly or unknowingly), in the current situation that America has found itself in, so I think it unfair to continue with the trial. I hope he becomes un-impeached.
I think it is both an sequential continuum , from the Republicans point of view, vis. thAt the Dems always had it in fro Trump, which the Dems dsny; setting this impeachment up as a separate offense.
Same one. The GOP held senate delayed the trial until he left office, then they lost control of the senate, then their first argument was that it would be unconstitutional to try a former president in the senate. They lost that vote and are now proceeding.
By their logic, any president could do anything in the last week of a term and there could be no legal remedy. I feel like that is an incorrect understanding of the separation of powers and of the limitations of the presidency. But they don’t care about that. 15 of the gop senators literally didn’t show up to hear the case, and I’ll bet you anything that they show up to vote to acquit. This is party over country and it is fundamentally against the values of America.
The key points today confirmed the prior assessment in previous days, that this whole political trial will balance against the constitutional argument.
if mcconnell wants unity then he needs to uphold his oath. he has nothing left to gain by pandering to the trumpites and their looney conspiracy theories.
Mitch Mcconnell suprise, he will vote to acquit, followed by Dems motion to pursue that by seeking procedural substance .
The vote on whether to athorize witnesses by deposing them , further escalates this process. Someone said that criminal prosecution outside the senate would satisfy grass roots optics. Of course Dems demurr.
The KEY issue here, is the proof that the Republicans claim is missing in reference to what Trump knew of the then ongoing storming of the Bastille-US Capitol, if i may makes that analology, when he appeared to ignore Pence’s deathly situation.
The fear is wether a 'Pandora’s Box of witnesses will slow the process, to a point where the whole thing will screech to a halt.
This vote in witnesses go to the heart of Mitch Mcdonnell’s decision.
The Bugler stipulation is factual evidence that solidifies the Democrat’s closing argument, while appropriately shortening the trial so that the Biden agenda can get on to meet the March 16 deadline. Contrary to the theory that it’ s a loss pf political capital.
If the orange man is acquitted it’s only because everyone was so distracted by raskin’s magnificent bald spot, they couldn’t concentrate on what he was sayin.